By: Phil Foster
- 27th April 2005 at 17:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's this then?
"No way do the French have more experience than the Brits with high performance fighter design."
Read it again SOC. It does not say that the British have more experience does it? No. Thankyou for your attention this time.
You are all very keen to leave anything out that weakens your arguments. Glitter, the Concorde is an "aircraft", the Jaguar is a "supersonic combat aircraft" that was not a successful naval aircraft because the French government did not give it the chance to be. All work on the TSR2, Lightning and other supersonic projects gave the British as much experience in the field as the French regardless of wether they went into production or not. Why leave out the Vulcan? Not fast enough? Same applies to the Harrier I suppose conveniently putting aside its combat record against supersonic combat aircraft it too is subsonic. Well you can show off your penis extensions if you really feel the need to but really, speed isn't everything is it, particularly if you can't be bothered to use every tool at your desposal to make best use of it?
Now 'nationalism' aside (seems to me the British are required to put aside nationalism in the face of French nationalism) my arguments stand. The French had no intention of joining the Eurofighter programme. They wanted to slow it down , delay it and then finally bury it. They delayed it alright but they did not bury it. Why? Because the people who designed it can build supersonic combat aircraft as well as anybody else can, including the French. Prove me wrong and I will appologise. In the end, people just get sick of French arrogance and show them the finger. Even governments and aircraft designers.
Phil :)
New
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder
- 27th April 2005 at 20:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
French had no intention of joining the Eurofighter programme. They wanted to slow it down , delay it and then finally bury it. They delayed it alright but they did not bury it. Why? Because the people who designed it can build supersonic combat aircraft as well as anybody else can, including the French.
Phil :)
Phil, the idea that France wanted to bury the programme is ludicrous. They wanted it done their way. So did Britain. If you look at their requirement you can understand why France wanted to do it it's way. There is no way in hell that the Typhoon design could be optimised for the carrier environment. I'm not trashing Typhoon, but it's design doesn't lend itself to carrier ops. Other than that it's OK. GD tried to sell a navalised F16 back in the '70s. Obviously it failed- how the hell do you want to catapult an 18 ton plane with THAT intake?
Also, I'm keen to remind you that Britain didn't exactly do itself credit when it walked away from Airbus. That decision, rightly or wrongly, certainly left it's mark on the minds of the French aviation industry and the politicians. Obviously, Germany didn't give a damn. The German politicians (with few exceptions) didn't give a s**t about the aviation industry.
Harrier is great. Lightning sucked big time. France (Dassault) has far more experience than any other European manufacturer with regard to design, manufacture and support of modern fighter planes.
Admittedly, Dassault did a disservice to the Aeronavale by plugging the Etendard against the Jaguar.
"Puffadder the problem is that the USA and Brussels see 'Europe' as a single political entity. It is not. The Brits, the French, The Germans, Dutch, Poles etc etc all have their own agenda. Europe is not a country and if NATO can't standardise what makes you think Europe can?"
You're right- to an extent. I do however believe that the actual requirements expressed by most of the airforces in Europe do actually overlap. Obviously petty nationalism, to which France is in no way immune, seems to win out quite often. As regards Rafale and Typhoon, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the RAF and Luftwaffe pilots would be quite at home in a plane with a close coupled canard and side intakes and that AdlA and Aeronavale pilots would be equally happy with a somewhat heavier Rafale with a centre joystick.
The Eurotrainer requirement would the the ideal opportunity for the European airforces to actually procure, in quantity, the M346 which is going to be an excellent trainer. Either that or go for a stripped down Gripen rather than Mako and K50. Watch us screw it up again :(
By: Kovy
- 27th April 2005 at 22:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On the other hand the French wanted to put in the least investment and at the same time take full development lead and the lion's share of the work 50% if my reading is correct. That left Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain with the scraps and still paying out the same amount of cash as the French in investment. It wasn't just the British who thought this was unacceptable and despite your dismissal of British (and for that matter German, Italian and Spanish) aviation design the French demands were indeed arrogant, politically motivated and designed to slow down the development of the Eurofighter whilst they worked on the Rafale. They succeeded.
BS ! All the expertise of Dassault on FBW delta fighter was worth the price...The other countries had obviously underestimated the difficulty to design such a flight control system from scratch. The result for the EF2000 > A painfull development 3 times more expensive than the Dassault design for exactly the same capabilities minus the navalisation ! good job :rolleyes:
Of course Dassault was asking a big stake... Their demonstrator was almost ready and they had already spent a sh!t lof of $ in the project + all the work on the 2000 and the 4000, 2 aircrafts that were unstable FBW delta design flying for many years. On the other hand, BAe and MBB had nothing more than the tornado (no delta, no FBW) and a few moke ups to put on the table. What would you have expected from Dassault ?
Also. Why does the Concorde not count and why not mention the Jaguar? Is it because that as an example they screw your argument that the British don't want to work with the French?
The concorde is a delta design with primitive analog FWB but she has nothing to do with an unstable fighter (high AOA, low speeds and High G maneuvering are not really her cup of tea).
The Jaguar is not a delta design nor a FBW aircraft.
By: Sens
- 27th April 2005 at 22:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
France had future exports in mind to keep its military aviation industry alive.
France did not accept any export restrictions from any partner in the program.
At that time the price of a fighter was related to weight. Lighter means cheaper.
The British version was the heaviest variant, the German in the middle and France the lightest. Wheight was related to capabilities too. The "version" decided on gives the leadership in design. The French wanted a naval variant too, what have had added extra costs for the partners. The higher weight British version looked less prone to gaining weight and cost during development.
In the aftermath the Rafale versions and the EF got heavier and more expensive than planned. The real enemy gone and too expensive for numerous exports. So all nations involved become loosers in some way by split common intrests. The winner is the USA.
By: Phil Foster
- 27th April 2005 at 22:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Puffadder:
"Obviously it failed- how the hell do you want to catapult an 18 ton plane with THAT intake?"
18t? Blimey people are putting that figure up all the time, even PilotGHT only puts it at 11.5t.
"Also, I'm keen to remind you that Britain didn't exactly do itself credit when it walked away from Airbus."
Walked away from Airbus? BAe still owns 20% of it and builds the wings. When did they walk away? Must have been in the last few weeks then?
"Lightning sucked big time."
Your opinion sucks.
"Admittedly, Dassault did a disservice to the Aeronavale by plugging the Etendard against the Jaguar."
We agree on something? Surely not?
"Watch us screw it up again"
With an atitude like that why should we bother?
Kovy:
"A painfull development 3 times more expensive than the Dassault design for exactly the same capabilities minus the navalisation ! good job "
We have already discussed the delays in the Eurofighter programme, they have nearly all been political and France played a hand in it. Three times more expensive? Don't talk rot they are as near as damn it identical in price and the only reason there is no naval version is because there was no requirement for a naval version.
"Of course Dassault was asking a big stake... Their demonstrator was almost ready and they had already spent a sh!t lof of $ in the project + all the work on the 2000 and the 4000, 2 aircrafts that were unstable FBW delta design flying for many years. On the other hand, BAe and MBB had nothing more than the tornado (no delta, no FBW) and a few moke ups to put on the table. What would you have expected from Dassault ?"
Of course the BAe EAP was a figment of my imagination.
"The concorde is a delta design with primitive analog FWB but she has nothing to do with an unstable fighter (high AOA, low speeds and High G maneuvering are not really her cup of tea).
The Jaguar is not a delta design nor a FBW aircraft."
Yup. The only way you can win the argument is by putting spin on it and changing the goal posts. This is about aviation design, you are spliting hairs.
By: Sens
- 27th April 2005 at 23:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Jaguar and F-104 were used as FBW testbeds early in development. Some other aircraft too. Much of the delays was not political related only. To create secure software for all functions consumed much more time than planned. A Rafale or EF will fly ~2008 with all capabilities promised for the early 90s.
By: Phil Foster
- 27th April 2005 at 23:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Certainly not all the delays were political but technical delays have been experienced by every new type ever to go through the R&D proccess. Singling out the Typhoon and claiming it was the only aircraft that ever suffered technical delays, or saying that the Rafale, Gripen, F22, Su27, Mig29 etc did not suffer technical delays is quite frankly absurd. Okay this has not been said but it has been implied. I am saying that most of the delays were political, delays which the British government are also guilty of instigating. In fact only the Spanish and the Italians cannot really be blamed for political delays but they had less clout than the British, the Germans and (at the beginning) the French. Between them the last three nations all managed to add at least 10 years onto the service entry date of this aircraft. Nothing to gloat about but hardly a design fault of the type.
By: Sens
- 28th April 2005 at 00:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Certainly not all the delays were political but technical delays have been experienced by every new type ever to go through the R&D proccess. Singling out the Typhoon and claiming it was the only aircraft that ever suffered technical delays, or saying that the Rafale, Gripen, F22, Su27, Mig29 etc did not suffer technical delays is quite frankly absurd. Okay this has not been said but it has been implied. I am saying that most of the delays were political, delays which the British government are also guilty of instigating. In fact only the Spanish and the Italians cannot really be blamed for political delays but they had less clout than the British, the Germans and (at the beginning) the French. Between them the last three nations all managed to add at least 10 years onto the service entry date of this aircraft. Nothing to gloat about but hardly a design fault of the type.
Phil
What angers about the Typhoon is, that the users were cheated. To save time and money already payed EADS is adding unnecessary weight to the design to keep the profit rate high. The politicans keep mouth about that, while fearing a public uproar. No headlines about Typhoon please. At least the British defence minister showed his displeasure, when threating the third batch.
I give-in, the F-35 suffer from similar problems. To keep the pice limit it will overweight too in the end. What are the actual weight values for a Rafale F3 will be 2008, we have to learn too.
By: Kovy
- 28th April 2005 at 00:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We have already discussed the delays in the Eurofighter programme, they have nearly all been political and France played a hand in it. Three times more expensive? Don't talk rot they are as near as damn it identical in price and the only reason there is no naval version is because there was no requirement for a naval version.
Rafale development : €10.1 billion
eurofighter development : €21.6 billion
OK it's "only" twice more :D
Of course the BAe EAP was a figment of my imagination.
Indeed, but the EAP made its first flight in 1986. At that time the mirage 2000 was flying with FBW and delta wing for 8 years and the mirage 4000 for 7 years...and btw, France was already out of the "eurofighter" project.
Yup. The only way you can win the argument is by putting spin on it and changing the goal posts. This is about aviation design, you are spliting hairs.
Read my first post. Since the bigining I'm talking about experience designing FBW delta wing fighters. Why ?
1- Because rafale and eurofighter are delta airframes with FBW FCS
2- Because, as everyboy know, the Eurofighter had many issues with her FCS costing a lot of time and £/€
By: Phil Foster
- 28th April 2005 at 01:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"What angers about the Typhoon is, that the users were cheated. To save time and money already payed EADS is adding unnecessary weight to the design to keep the profit rate high. The politicans keep mouth about that, while fearing a public uproar."
Speculation appears to be your forte. The Typhoon does not anger me, the delays do. At what point does developing an aircraft into a multi role platform become a matter of cheating?
Kovy:
"Rafale development : €10.1 billion"
It was/is 220bn Fr Francs which at the time of the switch to the Euro was about £21bn. Considering the current exchange rate of the Euro and the pound thats more like 30bn euros. In other words, about the same cost as the Typhoon. You are reducing and inflating figures as and when your argument requires it, regardless of accuracy. As was Puffadders claim that BAe walked away from Airbus. It doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
"Indeed, but the EAP made its first flight in 1986. At that time the mirage 2000 was flying with FBW and delta wing for 8 years and the mirage 4000 for 7 years...and btw, France was already out of the "eurofighter" project."
...and the first flight of the Rafale A was......? July 4, 1986. When did France pull out of the Eurofighter project? 1985. So apparently it took France just 1 year to design, build and fly the Rafale A? I don't think so. The Rafale A was more 'prototype' than technology demonstrator and possibly more representative of the finished product than was the EAP. Put simply, right throughout their development lives, both aircraft have remained remarkably similar in many respects. However the French had been working on the Rafale as they were 'negotiating' the Eurofighter project. The whole thing smacks of a certain amount of duplicity.
"Read my first post. Since the bigining I'm talking about experience designing FBW delta wing fighters. Why ?
1- Because rafale and eurofighter are delta airframes with FBW FCS
2- Because, as everyboy know, the Eurofighter had many issues with her FCS costing a lot of time and £/€"
I am talking about building FBW FCS aircraft in general. The UK had built plenty of deltas and plenty of aircraft with FBW FCS and in conjuction with Germany and Italy had built a very effective strike aircraft with FBW FCS and a variable geometry wing. Britain had plenty of experience with both. Arguing about what type of wing is best is, as I said earlier, merely splitting hairs. Its got nothing to do with relative experience in aviation design.
Phil :)
New
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder
- 28th April 2005 at 05:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Puffadder:
18t? Blimey people are putting that figure up all the time, even PilotGHT only puts it at 11.5t.
Walked away from Airbus? BAe still owns 20% of it and builds the wings. When did they walk away? Must have been in the last few weeks then?
Your opinion sucks.
With an atitude like that why should we bother?
Phil
My 18 ton figure refers to a nominal carrier plane, not a specific model. I was pointing out the weakness inherent in the design of a low slung intake.
A brief excursion into the history of the Airbus company- you need it!
As the requirement for a 300 seat plane cystallised in the mid '60s Britain and France agreed to a joint undertaking whereby Britain and France would take a 37,5% share in the company with Germany taking the remaining 25%.
In April 1969 Britain pulled out of the undertaking, leaving France and Germany to carry the can just as development was set to start. Prior to this Britain had done all it could to make the project sink!
Thus France and Germany agreed to a new framework where each would get 50%. Realising Hawker Siddley’s pre-eminence in the field of wing design, Hans Joseph Strauss chairman of the board, persuaded Germany to divert some of the funds going to pay for the British occupation of western Germany to Hawker Siddley. British engineers were sent to Bremen to work because they had no projects to keep them occupied in Britain.
On the 31 August 1978 Britain formally committed itself to Airbus again, but this time as a “junior” partner- junior in the sense of it’s financial commitment, not it’ competences.
Lightning? What do you want to hear from me- that it was a fine plane?
.
By: Phil Foster
- 28th April 2005 at 07:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My 18 ton figure refers to a nominal carrier plane, not a specific model. I was pointing out the weakness inherent in the design of a low slung intake.
So what exactly is a nominal carrier plane? Su33?, F18? Rafale? Are they all 18t? No chap you mentioned the Typhoon in the same breath as an 18t weight figure and who told you that underslung intakes were inherently weak? On land the F16 has no particular issues and have you ever looked at the intakes on an F18? Yes there is one either side of the fuselage but other than this they too are low slung, they protrude well below the line of the fuselage. Despite this the F18 is a dedicated carrier aircraft and it doesn't have any particular issues in this regard either. What about the navalised Fulcrum or the aforementioned Su33? You don't get more low slung than that and guess what? They don't have any particular issues either. I suppose mentioning the F14s intakes will be derided as well and even the Rafales intakes are not exactly planted atop the wings are they? Get it straight man, low slung intakes are fine, nothing wrong with them don't be so bloody daft.
I don't know about the history of Airbus, to be honest it is not really in my sphere of interest but I will say that in the absense of even circumstantial evidence, the accusation that Britain tried to sink it sounds far fetched. Given your propensity for pejudiced speculation I take it with healthy dose of scepticism.
Finally you say what you want about the Lightning, to be honest your opinions are a little predictable. I never asked you about it, I never even mentioned it, you fire your opinions about as much as you like mate, they say more about you than aviation.
By: Sens
- 28th April 2005 at 08:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Kovy, your example shows, that the development costs are not a correct yardstick.
In the Rafale were incorporated many gains from develepment-costs related to other fighters. See the Mirage 2000 FBW as example. Mica a.s.o.
We do not know if France was willing to share all the gains from that with its partners?
The Typhoon enabled all partners the same knowledge base and industrial capabilities.
If intrested Spain can built a Typhoon at home or use technology and production capabilities for other projects. So UK, Germany, Italy and Spain share a similar level of capabilities from that.
Without the F-22 there will not be a "cheap" F-35. If there will be a same level of capabilities for all partners in the F-35 program is questionable.
I used this examples to show, that comparing unit or development-costs alone can be very misleading.
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 28th April 2005 at 09:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know about the history of Airbus, to be honest it is not really in my sphere of interest but I will say that in the absense of even circumstantial evidence, the accusation that Britain tried to sink it sounds far fetched. Given your propensity for pejudiced speculation I take it with healthy dose of scepticism.
Phil, to be honest, you provided exactly as little evidence of Dassault trying to burry the EFA as he has. I only can suggest you take your own claims with healthy dose of scepticism, as well, then.
Finally you say what you want about the Lightning, to be honest your opinions are a little predictable. I never asked you about it, I never even mentioned it, you fire your opinions about as much as you like mate, they say more about you than aviation.
Phil ;)
It is no need to say anything about Lightning here, history has proven this bird very well. Outcome? No successes, absolutely ridiculous export orders, small amount of versions built, no room for upgrades, no room for more roles than its original interceptor role, high costs, tremendous complexity and maintenance nightmare say it all. Except for hard-core British aviation maniacs nobody even knows about its existency. The machine was an embarassment and I mean it.
OK, spit it on me... ;)
New
Posts: 26
By: will65
- 28th April 2005 at 10:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is no need to say anything about Lightning here, history has proven this bird very well. Outcome? No successes, absolutely ridiculous export orders, small amount of versions built, no room for upgrades, no room for more roles than its original interceptor role, high costs, tremendous complexity and maintenance nightmare say it all. Except for hard-core British aviation maniacs nobody even knows about its existency. The machine was an embarassment and I mean it.
OK, spit it on me... ;)
You are judging the Lightning by today standards. The requirements were for an interceptor which was concieved in the forties, designed in the fifties and went into service in 1961. Yes it had two major drawbacks, limited endurance and only two AAM's but the twin 30mm Aden's would have given any Bear or Badger pilot a rude awakening. It was designed to counter Soviet bombers that still relied on freefall nuclear weapons as their main ordanance, so the limited range wasn't really a issue. I believe the original requirement was to shoot down the incoming bombers over the North Sea as they approached the East coast.
With a little more research you might not judge the old bird so harshly.
By: Suggs
- 28th April 2005 at 11:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Phil, the idea that France wanted to bury the programme is ludicrous. They wanted it done their way. So did Britain. If you look at their requirement you can understand why France wanted to do it it's way. There is no way in hell that the Typhoon design could be optimised for the carrier environment. I'm not trashing Typhoon, but it's design doesn't lend itself to carrier ops. Other than that it's OK. GD tried to sell a navalised F16 back in the '70s. Obviously it failed- how the hell do you want to catapult an 18 ton plane with THAT intake?:(
Phil,
As much as I hate to say it Puffadders right on this one, Though I think that french avionics leave a lot to be desired, their A/C Designs are sound. I dont think that France have developed any more Supersonic Fighters than the UK. It's just that more of them reached production (TSR 2 - Say no more)
Also Had the UK gone with the French Design, they wouldn't be fannying around trying to decide whether to go STOVL, CATOBAR or BOTH wrt CVF :mad:
By: Kovy
- 28th April 2005 at 14:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My 18 ton figure refers to a nominal carrier plane, not a specific model. I was pointing out the weakness inherent in the design of a low slung intake.
18 t is just the weight of the typhoon with 5 t of fuel and 2 t of weapons... quite a usual payload.
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 28th April 2005 at 14:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are judging the Lightning by today standards. The requirements were for an interceptor which was concieved in the forties, designed in the fifties and went into service in 1961. Yes it had two major drawbacks, limited endurance and only two AAM's but the twin 30mm Aden's would have given any Bear or Badger pilot a rude awakening. It was designed to counter Soviet bombers that still relied on freefall nuclear weapons as their main ordanance, so the limited range wasn't really a issue. I believe the original requirement was to shoot down the incoming bombers over the North Sea as they approached the East coast.
With a little more research you might not judge the old bird so harshly.
I say it openly - a design carrying two ADENs plus two AAMs meeting the same requirements and even outperforming the bird in terms of range could have been made at fraction of maintenance costs and complexity. It was simply a bad aircraft, sh@t happens.. History has already judged the bird, there is no need to say anything more...
New
Posts: 26
By: will65
- 28th April 2005 at 16:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I say it openly - a design carrying two ADENs plus two AAMs meeting the same requirements and even outperforming the bird in terms of range could have been made at fraction of maintenance costs and complexity. It was simply a bad aircraft, sh@t happens.. History has already judged the bird, there is no need to say anything more...
The benefit of hindsight, it is a wonderful thing. I'm not trying to claim that the Lighting was a great aircraft, it was adequate for the role intended. Yes, when you compare it to a classic design of the same period such the Mirage III then it truly appears inadequate. But a better comparison would be similar designs of the period such as the Saab Draken, F104 & F106. With regards to performance, two AAM's and a relatively short range was not uncommon for a design of the same period. I don't believe history has judged the Lightning as harshly as you appear to, but then that is your prerogative, and at the end of the day it is also only your opinion which you are entitled to.
What would you consider a great aircraft/design and what criteria do you use to make your judgement?
One final note; NO I DON'T CONSIDER THE F104 A GREAT DESIGN.
Will
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 28th April 2005 at 16:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The benefit of hindsight, it is a wonderful thing. I'm not trying to claim that the Lighting was a great aircraft, it was adequate for the role intended. Yes, when you compare it to a classic design of the same period such the Mirage III then it truly appears inadequate. But a better comparison would be similar designs of the period such as the Saab Draken, F104 & F106. With regards to performance, two AAM's and a relatively short range was not uncommon for a design of the same period. I don't believe history has judged the Lightning as harshly as you appear to, but then that is your prerogative, and at the end of the day it is also only your opinion which you are entitled to.
What would you consider a great aircraft/design and what criteria do you use to make your judgement?
One final note; NO I DON'T CONSIDER THE F104 A GREAT DESIGN.
Will
Well, a great design would be something that has proven useful to more roles after some modifications and where service costs and complexity would have been adequate to combat value. Mirage III/V. BTW, they are still flying...
With Lightning you got performance below Mirage III level (no BVR) at the price and complexity of machines like Su-15. A slighty overkilled solution, but yes, it is only an opinion, I admit.
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 27th April 2005 at 17:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Read it again SOC. It does not say that the British have more experience does it? No. Thankyou for your attention this time.
You are all very keen to leave anything out that weakens your arguments. Glitter, the Concorde is an "aircraft", the Jaguar is a "supersonic combat aircraft" that was not a successful naval aircraft because the French government did not give it the chance to be. All work on the TSR2, Lightning and other supersonic projects gave the British as much experience in the field as the French regardless of wether they went into production or not. Why leave out the Vulcan? Not fast enough? Same applies to the Harrier I suppose conveniently putting aside its combat record against supersonic combat aircraft it too is subsonic. Well you can show off your penis extensions if you really feel the need to but really, speed isn't everything is it, particularly if you can't be bothered to use every tool at your desposal to make best use of it?
Now 'nationalism' aside (seems to me the British are required to put aside nationalism in the face of French nationalism) my arguments stand. The French had no intention of joining the Eurofighter programme. They wanted to slow it down , delay it and then finally bury it. They delayed it alright but they did not bury it. Why? Because the people who designed it can build supersonic combat aircraft as well as anybody else can, including the French. Prove me wrong and I will appologise. In the end, people just get sick of French arrogance and show them the finger. Even governments and aircraft designers.
Phil :)
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 27th April 2005 at 20:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Phil, the idea that France wanted to bury the programme is ludicrous. They wanted it done their way. So did Britain. If you look at their requirement you can understand why France wanted to do it it's way. There is no way in hell that the Typhoon design could be optimised for the carrier environment. I'm not trashing Typhoon, but it's design doesn't lend itself to carrier ops. Other than that it's OK. GD tried to sell a navalised F16 back in the '70s. Obviously it failed- how the hell do you want to catapult an 18 ton plane with THAT intake?
Also, I'm keen to remind you that Britain didn't exactly do itself credit when it walked away from Airbus. That decision, rightly or wrongly, certainly left it's mark on the minds of the French aviation industry and the politicians. Obviously, Germany didn't give a damn. The German politicians (with few exceptions) didn't give a s**t about the aviation industry.
Harrier is great. Lightning sucked big time. France (Dassault) has far more experience than any other European manufacturer with regard to design, manufacture and support of modern fighter planes.
Admittedly, Dassault did a disservice to the Aeronavale by plugging the Etendard against the Jaguar.
"Puffadder the problem is that the USA and Brussels see 'Europe' as a single political entity. It is not. The Brits, the French, The Germans, Dutch, Poles etc etc all have their own agenda. Europe is not a country and if NATO can't standardise what makes you think Europe can?"
You're right- to an extent. I do however believe that the actual requirements expressed by most of the airforces in Europe do actually overlap. Obviously petty nationalism, to which France is in no way immune, seems to win out quite often. As regards Rafale and Typhoon, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the RAF and Luftwaffe pilots would be quite at home in a plane with a close coupled canard and side intakes and that AdlA and Aeronavale pilots would be equally happy with a somewhat heavier Rafale with a centre joystick.
The Eurotrainer requirement would the the ideal opportunity for the European airforces to actually procure, in quantity, the M346 which is going to be an excellent trainer. Either that or go for a stripped down Gripen rather than Mako and K50. Watch us screw it up again :(
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 27th April 2005 at 22:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BS ! All the expertise of Dassault on FBW delta fighter was worth the price...The other countries had obviously underestimated the difficulty to design such a flight control system from scratch. The result for the EF2000 > A painfull development 3 times more expensive than the Dassault design for exactly the same capabilities minus the navalisation ! good job :rolleyes:
Of course Dassault was asking a big stake... Their demonstrator was almost ready and they had already spent a sh!t lof of $ in the project + all the work on the 2000 and the 4000, 2 aircrafts that were unstable FBW delta design flying for many years. On the other hand, BAe and MBB had nothing more than the tornado (no delta, no FBW) and a few moke ups to put on the table. What would you have expected from Dassault ?
The concorde is a delta design with primitive analog FWB but she has nothing to do with an unstable fighter (high AOA, low speeds and High G maneuvering are not really her cup of tea).
The Jaguar is not a delta design nor a FBW aircraft.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 27th April 2005 at 22:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
France had future exports in mind to keep its military aviation industry alive.
France did not accept any export restrictions from any partner in the program.
At that time the price of a fighter was related to weight. Lighter means cheaper.
The British version was the heaviest variant, the German in the middle and France the lightest. Wheight was related to capabilities too. The "version" decided on gives the leadership in design. The French wanted a naval variant too, what have had added extra costs for the partners. The higher weight British version looked less prone to gaining weight and cost during development.
In the aftermath the Rafale versions and the EF got heavier and more expensive than planned. The real enemy gone and too expensive for numerous exports. So all nations involved become loosers in some way by split common intrests. The winner is the USA.
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 27th April 2005 at 22:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Puffadder:
"Obviously it failed- how the hell do you want to catapult an 18 ton plane with THAT intake?"
18t? Blimey people are putting that figure up all the time, even PilotGHT only puts it at 11.5t.
"Also, I'm keen to remind you that Britain didn't exactly do itself credit when it walked away from Airbus."
Walked away from Airbus? BAe still owns 20% of it and builds the wings. When did they walk away? Must have been in the last few weeks then?
"Lightning sucked big time."
Your opinion sucks.
"Admittedly, Dassault did a disservice to the Aeronavale by plugging the Etendard against the Jaguar."
We agree on something? Surely not?
"Watch us screw it up again"
With an atitude like that why should we bother?
Kovy:
"A painfull development 3 times more expensive than the Dassault design for exactly the same capabilities minus the navalisation ! good job "
We have already discussed the delays in the Eurofighter programme, they have nearly all been political and France played a hand in it. Three times more expensive? Don't talk rot they are as near as damn it identical in price and the only reason there is no naval version is because there was no requirement for a naval version.
"Of course Dassault was asking a big stake... Their demonstrator was almost ready and they had already spent a sh!t lof of $ in the project + all the work on the 2000 and the 4000, 2 aircrafts that were unstable FBW delta design flying for many years. On the other hand, BAe and MBB had nothing more than the tornado (no delta, no FBW) and a few moke ups to put on the table. What would you have expected from Dassault ?"
Of course the BAe EAP was a figment of my imagination.
"The concorde is a delta design with primitive analog FWB but she has nothing to do with an unstable fighter (high AOA, low speeds and High G maneuvering are not really her cup of tea).
The Jaguar is not a delta design nor a FBW aircraft."
Yup. The only way you can win the argument is by putting spin on it and changing the goal posts. This is about aviation design, you are spliting hairs.
Phil
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 27th April 2005 at 23:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Jaguar and F-104 were used as FBW testbeds early in development. Some other aircraft too. Much of the delays was not political related only. To create secure software for all functions consumed much more time than planned. A Rafale or EF will fly ~2008 with all capabilities promised for the early 90s.
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 27th April 2005 at 23:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Certainly not all the delays were political but technical delays have been experienced by every new type ever to go through the R&D proccess. Singling out the Typhoon and claiming it was the only aircraft that ever suffered technical delays, or saying that the Rafale, Gripen, F22, Su27, Mig29 etc did not suffer technical delays is quite frankly absurd. Okay this has not been said but it has been implied. I am saying that most of the delays were political, delays which the British government are also guilty of instigating. In fact only the Spanish and the Italians cannot really be blamed for political delays but they had less clout than the British, the Germans and (at the beginning) the French. Between them the last three nations all managed to add at least 10 years onto the service entry date of this aircraft. Nothing to gloat about but hardly a design fault of the type.
Phil
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 28th April 2005 at 00:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What angers about the Typhoon is, that the users were cheated. To save time and money already payed EADS is adding unnecessary weight to the design to keep the profit rate high. The politicans keep mouth about that, while fearing a public uproar. No headlines about Typhoon please. At least the British defence minister showed his displeasure, when threating the third batch.
I give-in, the F-35 suffer from similar problems. To keep the pice limit it will overweight too in the end. What are the actual weight values for a Rafale F3 will be 2008, we have to learn too.
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 28th April 2005 at 00:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale development : €10.1 billion
eurofighter development : €21.6 billion
OK it's "only" twice more :D
Indeed, but the EAP made its first flight in 1986. At that time the mirage 2000 was flying with FBW and delta wing for 8 years and the mirage 4000 for 7 years...and btw, France was already out of the "eurofighter" project.
Read my first post. Since the bigining I'm talking about experience designing FBW delta wing fighters. Why ?
1- Because rafale and eurofighter are delta airframes with FBW FCS
2- Because, as everyboy know, the Eurofighter had many issues with her FCS costing a lot of time and £/€
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 28th April 2005 at 01:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"What angers about the Typhoon is, that the users were cheated. To save time and money already payed EADS is adding unnecessary weight to the design to keep the profit rate high. The politicans keep mouth about that, while fearing a public uproar."
Speculation appears to be your forte. The Typhoon does not anger me, the delays do. At what point does developing an aircraft into a multi role platform become a matter of cheating?
Kovy:
"Rafale development : €10.1 billion"
It was/is 220bn Fr Francs which at the time of the switch to the Euro was about £21bn. Considering the current exchange rate of the Euro and the pound thats more like 30bn euros. In other words, about the same cost as the Typhoon. You are reducing and inflating figures as and when your argument requires it, regardless of accuracy. As was Puffadders claim that BAe walked away from Airbus. It doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
"Indeed, but the EAP made its first flight in 1986. At that time the mirage 2000 was flying with FBW and delta wing for 8 years and the mirage 4000 for 7 years...and btw, France was already out of the "eurofighter" project."
...and the first flight of the Rafale A was......? July 4, 1986. When did France pull out of the Eurofighter project? 1985. So apparently it took France just 1 year to design, build and fly the Rafale A? I don't think so. The Rafale A was more 'prototype' than technology demonstrator and possibly more representative of the finished product than was the EAP. Put simply, right throughout their development lives, both aircraft have remained remarkably similar in many respects. However the French had been working on the Rafale as they were 'negotiating' the Eurofighter project. The whole thing smacks of a certain amount of duplicity.
"Read my first post. Since the bigining I'm talking about experience designing FBW delta wing fighters. Why ?
1- Because rafale and eurofighter are delta airframes with FBW FCS
2- Because, as everyboy know, the Eurofighter had many issues with her FCS costing a lot of time and £/€"
I am talking about building FBW FCS aircraft in general. The UK had built plenty of deltas and plenty of aircraft with FBW FCS and in conjuction with Germany and Italy had built a very effective strike aircraft with FBW FCS and a variable geometry wing. Britain had plenty of experience with both. Arguing about what type of wing is best is, as I said earlier, merely splitting hairs. Its got nothing to do with relative experience in aviation design.
Phil :)
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 28th April 2005 at 05:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My 18 ton figure refers to a nominal carrier plane, not a specific model. I was pointing out the weakness inherent in the design of a low slung intake.
A brief excursion into the history of the Airbus company- you need it!
As the requirement for a 300 seat plane cystallised in the mid '60s Britain and France agreed to a joint undertaking whereby Britain and France would take a 37,5% share in the company with Germany taking the remaining 25%.
In April 1969 Britain pulled out of the undertaking, leaving France and Germany to carry the can just as development was set to start. Prior to this Britain had done all it could to make the project sink!
Thus France and Germany agreed to a new framework where each would get 50%. Realising Hawker Siddley’s pre-eminence in the field of wing design, Hans Joseph Strauss chairman of the board, persuaded Germany to divert some of the funds going to pay for the British occupation of western Germany to Hawker Siddley. British engineers were sent to Bremen to work because they had no projects to keep them occupied in Britain.
On the 31 August 1978 Britain formally committed itself to Airbus again, but this time as a “junior” partner- junior in the sense of it’s financial commitment, not it’ competences.
Lightning? What do you want to hear from me- that it was a fine plane?
.
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 28th April 2005 at 07:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So what exactly is a nominal carrier plane? Su33?, F18? Rafale? Are they all 18t? No chap you mentioned the Typhoon in the same breath as an 18t weight figure and who told you that underslung intakes were inherently weak? On land the F16 has no particular issues and have you ever looked at the intakes on an F18? Yes there is one either side of the fuselage but other than this they too are low slung, they protrude well below the line of the fuselage. Despite this the F18 is a dedicated carrier aircraft and it doesn't have any particular issues in this regard either. What about the navalised Fulcrum or the aforementioned Su33? You don't get more low slung than that and guess what? They don't have any particular issues either. I suppose mentioning the F14s intakes will be derided as well and even the Rafales intakes are not exactly planted atop the wings are they? Get it straight man, low slung intakes are fine, nothing wrong with them don't be so bloody daft.
I don't know about the history of Airbus, to be honest it is not really in my sphere of interest but I will say that in the absense of even circumstantial evidence, the accusation that Britain tried to sink it sounds far fetched. Given your propensity for pejudiced speculation I take it with healthy dose of scepticism.
Finally you say what you want about the Lightning, to be honest your opinions are a little predictable. I never asked you about it, I never even mentioned it, you fire your opinions about as much as you like mate, they say more about you than aviation.
Phil ;)
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 28th April 2005 at 08:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Kovy, your example shows, that the development costs are not a correct yardstick.
In the Rafale were incorporated many gains from develepment-costs related to other fighters. See the Mirage 2000 FBW as example. Mica a.s.o.
We do not know if France was willing to share all the gains from that with its partners?
The Typhoon enabled all partners the same knowledge base and industrial capabilities.
If intrested Spain can built a Typhoon at home or use technology and production capabilities for other projects. So UK, Germany, Italy and Spain share a similar level of capabilities from that.
Without the F-22 there will not be a "cheap" F-35. If there will be a same level of capabilities for all partners in the F-35 program is questionable.
I used this examples to show, that comparing unit or development-costs alone can be very misleading.
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 28th April 2005 at 09:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Phil, to be honest, you provided exactly as little evidence of Dassault trying to burry the EFA as he has. I only can suggest you take your own claims with healthy dose of scepticism, as well, then.
It is no need to say anything about Lightning here, history has proven this bird very well. Outcome? No successes, absolutely ridiculous export orders, small amount of versions built, no room for upgrades, no room for more roles than its original interceptor role, high costs, tremendous complexity and maintenance nightmare say it all. Except for hard-core British aviation maniacs nobody even knows about its existency. The machine was an embarassment and I mean it.
OK, spit it on me... ;)
Posts: 26
By: will65 - 28th April 2005 at 10:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are judging the Lightning by today standards. The requirements were for an interceptor which was concieved in the forties, designed in the fifties and went into service in 1961. Yes it had two major drawbacks, limited endurance and only two AAM's but the twin 30mm Aden's would have given any Bear or Badger pilot a rude awakening. It was designed to counter Soviet bombers that still relied on freefall nuclear weapons as their main ordanance, so the limited range wasn't really a issue. I believe the original requirement was to shoot down the incoming bombers over the North Sea as they approached the East coast.
With a little more research you might not judge the old bird so harshly.
http://www.vectorsite.net/aveeltg.html
Regards
Will
Posts: 75
By: Suggs - 28th April 2005 at 11:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Phil,
As much as I hate to say it Puffadders right on this one, Though I think that french avionics leave a lot to be desired, their A/C Designs are sound. I dont think that France have developed any more Supersonic Fighters than the UK. It's just that more of them reached production (TSR 2 - Say no more)
Also Had the UK gone with the French Design, they wouldn't be fannying around trying to decide whether to go STOVL, CATOBAR or BOTH wrt CVF :mad:
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 28th April 2005 at 14:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
18 t is just the weight of the typhoon with 5 t of fuel and 2 t of weapons... quite a usual payload.
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 28th April 2005 at 14:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I say it openly - a design carrying two ADENs plus two AAMs meeting the same requirements and even outperforming the bird in terms of range could have been made at fraction of maintenance costs and complexity. It was simply a bad aircraft, sh@t happens.. History has already judged the bird, there is no need to say anything more...
Posts: 26
By: will65 - 28th April 2005 at 16:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The benefit of hindsight, it is a wonderful thing. I'm not trying to claim that the Lighting was a great aircraft, it was adequate for the role intended. Yes, when you compare it to a classic design of the same period such the Mirage III then it truly appears inadequate. But a better comparison would be similar designs of the period such as the Saab Draken, F104 & F106. With regards to performance, two AAM's and a relatively short range was not uncommon for a design of the same period. I don't believe history has judged the Lightning as harshly as you appear to, but then that is your prerogative, and at the end of the day it is also only your opinion which you are entitled to.
What would you consider a great aircraft/design and what criteria do you use to make your judgement?
One final note; NO I DON'T CONSIDER THE F104 A GREAT DESIGN.
Will
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 28th April 2005 at 16:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, a great design would be something that has proven useful to more roles after some modifications and where service costs and complexity would have been adequate to combat value. Mirage III/V. BTW, they are still flying...
With Lightning you got performance below Mirage III level (no BVR) at the price and complexity of machines like Su-15. A slighty overkilled solution, but yes, it is only an opinion, I admit.